Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Affect Disord. 2009 Jul;116(1-2):1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.11.009. Epub 2008 Dec 4.

Depression and the pitfalls of causality: implications for DSM-V.

Author information

1
SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA. ronpies@massmed.org

Abstract

Causal narratives are often invoked as explanations for depressive episodes, and some have argued that even serious depressive symptoms in the context of recent bereavement should not be considered a psychiatric disorder. However, the limited data we have suggest that "bereavement-related depression" does not significantly differ from non-bereavement-related major depression, in terms of symptom picture, risk of recurrence, or clinical outcome. Furthermore, the notion of establishing a psychosocial precipitant (such as loss of a loved one) as the "cause" of a patient's depression fails to consider several confounding variables. The patient may have an inaccurate or distorted recollection of depression onset, or be unaware of pre-existing medical and neurological conditions that are strongly "driving" the depression. Moreover, judgments regarding how "proportionate" or "disproportionate" a person's depressive symptoms are in relation to a putative "precipitant" are fraught with uncertainties and may be influenced by cultural biases. Until we have controlled, longitudinal data showing that "bereavement-related depression" differs significantly from non-bereavement-related major depression, it is premature and risky to alter our current "cause-neutral" diagnostic framework. Indeed, there are compelling reasons to eliminate the so-called bereavement exclusion from DSM-V.

PMID:
19062102
DOI:
10.1016/j.jad.2008.11.009
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center